Thursday, January 15, 2009

MTA plan not a popular one

From the Daily News:

The MTA chairman was shouted down by a boisterous crowd of more than 600 last night when he said fare increases would be unavoidable without a massive state bailout.

Dale Hemmerdinger tried to explain the Metropolitan Transportation Authority doesn't want to raise fares or cut service, but has no options.

Unless the state Legislature adopts a transit rescue package to help plug a $1.2 billion operating budget, MTA leaders say they will have to impose a series of whopping fare hikes and severe service cuts starting in March.

Hemmerdinger last night said the cash fare could go as high as $3 and the monthly MetroCard could hit $103.


But Sheldon Silver is looking to ride in on his white horse and save the day.

6 comments:

Wade Nichols said...

The MTA chairman was shouted down by a boisterous crowd of more than 600 last night when he said fare increases would be unavoidable without a massive state bailout.

What a load of BS! Is that becoming the default excuse now for every industry or public service in the U.S. - "We need a bailout!"?

The Daily News and other media outlets should have set up their cameras outside the Hilton Hotel, and filmed these MTA executive bozos arriving in their Escalades and Lincoln Town Cars, instead of using public transportation like the rest of us.

It at least worked into shaming the bozo executives of the auto industry, when word got out that they flew to Washington D.C. in a Gulf Stream jet to beg for a handout from the Federal government.

ew-3 said...

I know I will get flamed for this, but I hope some will think about it first.

Running the MTA should be a strightforward job. Running any company reuires keeping revenue above costs.
But the MTA has an easy job. They have a guarenteed revenue stream. Only when ridership drops would revenue decrease.
My company starts every year with zero revenue. Nothing like the MTA does. For us to increase revenue we need to sell more product by providing a better product at the same price point, or we can cut our costs. Simple. No bailouts for us.
Since the MTA has fairly fixed revenue, the only reason they keep increasing fairs is they have increasing costs. Costs can be controlled. Period.
If I raised my prices everytime my costs went up, I'd kill my company. Something the MTA management should think about.

Anonymous said...

Maybe they could save some money if they would stop the 45. It is just a waste of gas, time, salaries, and our tax dollars. It does not look like Atlas has any additional business. More stores are doing less business.

Anonymous said...

10 straight record years of 1.5 billion passengers per year and the MTA is broke????!!!!!
STOP THE LYING!!!

Anonymous said...

ew-3 said...


But the MTA has an easy job. They have a guarenteed revenue stream. Only when ridership drops would revenue decrease.
------------------------------------------

If the MTA depended only on farebox revenue for a revenue stream, you'd be right. But they don't, and you're wrong.

For farebox revenue to pay the majority (not even all) of the revenue stream, they would have to implement even bigger fare increases or put in immense service cuts. Do you think that's a good idea?

The state and city governments have been cutting back on their share of aid for years (thank you, Governor Pataki. Thank you Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg) and tax revenues are now dropping. Any ideas as to what to do besides come up with concepts from right-wing fantasy land?

ew-3 said...

it sad that you equate economics 101 to a right wing view. Economics 101 has been around for a long time and works. It's only when the government tries to get involved things go bad. Just as the rules of science don't apply in DC, neither do the rules of economics.
As to Pataki et al being the source of the problem due to cutting back on subsidies, I'd suggst to you that it was the pols that started the subsidies were the real root cause of the problem. Maybe if the MTA had been cleaned up years ago, this problem wouldn't exist. Just compare the pension plans government unions have to the civilian sector.